[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Hudson Institute / sustainability



Hi, y'all -

A few comments . . .

1) Yes, right-of-center suppositions are detrimental in and of 
themselves.  They derive from beliefs about human worth vs. state power, 
and the conclusions demonstrate these beliefs.  Not that "left-wing" 
viewpoints are _necessarily_ good alternatives, but many or most of them 
are.

2) The view that high-yield (read capital- and chemical-intensive) 
agriculture can ameliorate the effects of some population bomb (the 
existence of which is also subject to debate) ignores that high-yield ag 
creates conditions which lead to increased birth-rates.  This ag creates 
poverty and concentration of wealth and power, leading to reduced 
education and opportunities, leading to exactly the kind of increased 
uncertainty which fosters large families.

I have only had time to skim the report in question; I'll sit down with 
it later.  On first glance, 'though, it is one of the more retrograde 
pieces I have seen in a while.  Not only 
do I disagree with it politically, I disagree with it academically, and 
don't find it a useful contribution to the discussion of ag 
sustainability except to demonstrate how far we still have to go.

Ciao,
Bill Blake





References: